Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 07:04 PM Jun 2014

“You Allow Your Heart to Be Broken Every Day”

Columbine. Virginia Tech. Aurora. Newtown. Isla Vista. Families of shooting victims describe the struggle of lobbying for gun control, and how they keep going.

By Emily Bazelon


On Tuesday, a man with a gun killed a student and wounded a teacher at an Oregon high school. Two days earlier, a couple on an anti-government rampage shot two police officers and a man in a Walmart. And the week before that, Elliot Rodgers killed three people and wounded 13 in a shooting spree in the college town of Isla Vista, California. Those are just the recent fatal shootings that made headlines. At Slate, after the devastating mass shooting at Newtown, we tried to track each gun death for more than a year. The data were incomplete—and the total was still 12,042.

In the wake of the Isla Vista shootings, the father of one of the victims, Richard Martinez, spoke out in an effort to “make my son’s death mean something.” He has joined a brave, sad band of family members who have made preventing more gun violence their cause. At Slate, we wanted to know what it’s like to do this work, day in and day out. How does it feel to watch the shootings recur? How do you keep going?

On Monday, I sat down to talk with people who have lost loved ones to gun violence. They’d gathered in Washington, D.C., for a conference hosted by the Brady Campaign. Tom Sullivan lost his son Alex, on his 27th birthday in Aurora two years ago (12 dead, 70 wounded). Sandy and Lonnie Phillips lost their daughter, Jessica, 24, also at Aurora. Carlos Soto, who is 16, lost his sister, Victoria, a 27-year-old teacher, at Newtown (26 dead, two wounded). Tom Mauser, who joined us by phone, lost his 15-year-old son, Daniel, at Columbine in 1999 (13 dead, 24 wounded). Eddie Weingart lost his mother when he was 2 years old; she was murdered by her ex-husband. Andrew Goddard’s son, Colin, then 21, was shot four times at Virginia Tech (32 dead, 17 wounded). Colin recovered and also works to prevent gun violence.

more
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/06/columbine_aurora_newtown_isla_vista_families_of_shooting_victims_talk_about.html?


10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
“You Allow Your Heart to Be Broken Every Day” (Original Post) DonViejo Jun 2014 OP
........ daleanime Jun 2014 #1
K and R, this is important etherealtruth Jun 2014 #2
Congress has ZERO balls Alex P Notkeaton Jun 2014 #3
thanks DV Cha Jun 2014 #4
Ask yourself this. Jerry442 Jun 2014 #5
My guess is that there is nothing in the Constitution Art_from_Ark Jun 2014 #6
There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that warrants this level of craziness. Jerry442 Jun 2014 #7
Of course there isn't Art_from_Ark Jun 2014 #8
in social and political science it's called an "articulation," which means that two (or more!) MisterP Jun 2014 #10
I keep looking but see no militias. rickyhall Jun 2014 #9

Jerry442

(1,265 posts)
5. Ask yourself this.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 09:03 PM
Jun 2014

1. The tobacco industry is vastly larger than the gun industry, in sales and profits.

2. Tobacco kills quietly, one victim at a time, mostly people who willingly use it, while guns inflict sudden bloody death, frequently to innocent victims, sometimes multiple ones, often seen on nationwide news.

3. We all know several people who use tobacco regularly. At one time it seemed like some of us knew more smokers than not. How many people do you know (other than law enforcement officers) who own a gun that they keep at the ready, carry concealed, or own multiple guns?

And yet, the tobacco industry, despite massively greater resources, has been beset from every side with regulations, heavy taxation, mandatory warning labels, lawsuits, prohibition of the use of its product in ever-growing areas in our society, government-funded research as to its dangers, publicly funded anti-smoking campaigns, and general condemnation.

Why is it that the gun industry, the NRA, and the gun fanatics seem to be more unstoppable than the tobacco industry, when they have a fraction of its resources?

Why?

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
6. My guess is that there is nothing in the Constitution
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 09:14 PM
Jun 2014

that specifically pertains to the right to smoke. I imagine, though, that if the tobacco growers of 1787 could have seen what 2014 would be like, they might have pressed for an additional clause in the Constitution: "Congress shall pass no laws regarding the production or use of tobacco."

Jerry442

(1,265 posts)
7. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that warrants this level of craziness.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 09:20 PM
Jun 2014

Historically, it was interpreted fairly sanely.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
8. Of course there isn't
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 09:31 PM
Jun 2014

But these days, that part in the 2nd Amendment about a "well-regulated militia" is always overlooked. And "bearing arms" is not the same as "owning arms". Unfortunately, that part of the Consitution has been interpreted as meaning "the right to own weapons shall not be infringed".

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
10. in social and political science it's called an "articulation," which means that two (or more!)
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 10:01 PM
Jun 2014

things that are connected don't do so perfectly or one-on-one, so you can get discrepancies

another example would be creationism: it's not profitable by itself, but we have way higher numbers of it than Canada or Britain or Italy or Russia (all of which are otherwise similar in history and society): 1) it's "red meat" for the fundies, who arose as a political force in the 70s and were part of the "Reagan coalition" that ruled the GOP since 1980 (along with Big Business, warmongers, and right-libertarian anarcho-capitalists); 2) it's a "side-effect" of CFC and CO2 denial, which are VERY much profitable--it's "brown" against the Greens (the Browns include many technocrats, who also think science shouldn't listen to little people or females)

back in the 60s Christianity was seen as either "Jesus spoke English and hated Castro" or "who is this guy they're talking about--is it pronounced 'Geeses'?" back then creationism was a marginal Adventist heresy (it still IS, but it's just entered circulation as a distinguishing mark for a "Real True Christian" who doesn't NEED to know any theology or history, thank you very much!)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»“You Allow Your Heart to ...